But what is documented by this and other insect fossils coincides with what is documented in Scripture. The creation model holds that in the beginning, God created certain creatures to fly. Both the written and the fossil records agree that insect flight did not evolve, but suddenly appeared as a fully developed and completely functional ability.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

"Fish and Fowl" is the usual translation. This same translation is used to determine that Noah didn't have any insects on the Ark.

And day SIX is "land animals." Care to explain why this flying insect is exactly according to Genesis, but archeosaurs -- and even some synapsids -- were already well-instated in the PREVIOUS geological epoc?

But what is documented by this and other insect fossils coincides with what is documented in Scripture. The creation model holds that in the beginning, God created certain creatures to fly. Both the written and the fossil records agree that insect flight did not evolve, but suddenly appeared as a fully developed and completely functional ability.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

"Fish and Fowl" is the usual translation. This same translation is used to determine that Noah didn't have any insects on the Ark.

And day SIX is "land animals." Care to explain why this flying insect is exactly according to Genesis, but archeosaurs -- and even some synapsids -- were already well-instated in the PREVIOUS geological epoc?

Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I don't know. But what the evidence certainly shows is that insects (or any organisms for that matter) did not "evolve" wings. Not only is there no evidence, such a concept is logically absurd. Mutations don't design complex aviation systems, obviously.

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Quoting: SheldonCooper

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Yes, anything that alludes to the rational premise of intelligent design is censored. That is the central theme of the presentation. Do you honestly think Academia is going to allow a divine foot in the door, regardless of data? Naturalism is the dominating philosophy and religion.

Like Meyers stated, the logical inferences he and others are using, are exactly the same inferring Darwin himself used to usher in the era of evolutionary thinking.

Another thing Meyers points out is the heuristic value of intelligent design. Whereas Evolutionists will commonly view the world of Genetics through the lens of randomness and purposelessness, an ID proponent will seek out function where it is not apparent.

That's why ID proponents were not surprised to learn recently of the major functionality reported in over 70% of the human genome that was once thought to be of little importance in the Evolutionist paradigm of unguided mutations.

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

we can also infer that god built an adapting and evolving system. something that doesnt require his daily supervision.

Quoting: Edge Rider

We certainly could, if there were evidence for such a thing.

Currently the historical and genetic data points away from common descent, and points towards a Creation event(s)

We simply are not seeing mutation events that would account for steadily increasing complexity.

Nor are we finding the fossil evidence of these gradual shifting of morphologies.

Not to mention, like it or not, the foundation of the evolutionary paradigm relies on some form of Abiogenesis, which modern molecular biology tells us is completely absurd. Nothing in natural science indicates that a living, functioning system will construct itself.

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

we can also infer that god built an adapting and evolving system. something that doesnt require his daily supervision.

Quoting: Edge Rider

We certainly could, if there were evidence for such a thing.

Currently the historical and genetic data points away from common descent, and points towards a Creation event(s)

We simply are not seeing mutation events that would account for steadily increasing complexity.

Nor are we finding the fossil evidence of these gradual shifting of morphologies.

Not to mention, like it or not, the foundation of the evolutionary paradigm relies on some form of Abiogenesis, which modern molecular biology tells us is completely absurd. Nothing in natural science indicates that a living, functioning system will construct itself.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

The shills will be strong with this thread, OP. Keep up the honest work though, its appreciated.

But what is documented by this and other insect fossils coincides with what is documented in Scripture. The creation model holds that in the beginning, God created certain creatures to fly. Both the written and the fossil records agree that insect flight did not evolve, but suddenly appeared as a fully developed and completely functional ability.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

"Fish and Fowl" is the usual translation. This same translation is used to determine that Noah didn't have any insects on the Ark.

And day SIX is "land animals." Care to explain why this flying insect is exactly according to Genesis, but archeosaurs -- and even some synapsids -- were already well-instated in the PREVIOUS geological epoc?

Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I don't know. But what the evidence certainly shows is that insects (or any organisms for that matter) did not "evolve" wings. Not only is there no evidence, such a concept is logically absurd. Mutations don't design complex aviation systems, obviously.

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

Run away, run away!

Are you going to stand by any argument, or are you just going to keep finding new horses?

But what is documented by this and other insect fossils coincides with what is documented in Scripture. The creation model holds that in the beginning, God created certain creatures to fly. Both the written and the fossil records agree that insect flight did not evolve, but suddenly appeared as a fully developed and completely functional ability.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

"Fish and Fowl" is the usual translation. This same translation is used to determine that Noah didn't have any insects on the Ark.

And day SIX is "land animals." Care to explain why this flying insect is exactly according to Genesis, but archeosaurs -- and even some synapsids -- were already well-instated in the PREVIOUS geological epoc?

Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I don't know. But what the evidence certainly shows is that insects (or any organisms for that matter) did not "evolve" wings. Not only is there no evidence, such a concept is logically absurd. Mutations don't design complex aviation systems, obviously.

If we set aside your naturalism religion for a moment, we can rationally infer that they were intelligently designed.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519

Run away, run away!

Are you going to stand by any argument, or are you just going to keep finding new horses?

Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Yes, I stand by my argument that Evolution is a fairytale. I think I've been pretty consistent on that.

I never claimed to be able to explain every facet of the creation process.

Fortunately a "theory" like darwinian evolution can be demolished based on its own lack of merit. Supporting a replacement theory is not a prerequisite.

9 pages and no one posted anything about Kent Hovind, I suggest looking him up. He destroys every evolutionist he ever debates. He even debates entire universities on this subject and IMO wins every time.

9 pages and no one posted anything about Kent Hovind, I suggest looking him up. He destroys every evolutionist he ever debates. He even debates entire universities on this subject and IMO wins every time.

Kent Hovind is great. He was the one who originally inspired me to question evolutionary dogma. Lo and behold, on further examination, there is not a shred of hard evidence to support Darwinian Evolution. They've been going off total assumption and speculation this entire time and passing it off to the public as irrefutable truth.

What we are truly faced with is a very rigid and blind faith in Naturalism. They can not let the evolutionary paradigm go because their whole world will fall apart.

While not against some sort of creation theory (either by aliens of a higher entity god type thing) i don't agree with what I've read so far.

BIRDS. Well first of all, the dinosaurs into birds is easy. It started with those forest dinos which actually had feathers (as quite a lot now turn out to have) using the ability to GLIDE from tree to tree. All it takes is a shift in environment such as less trees with a farther distance between them to cause the dinos to start mating for with those with the best ability to glide/jump and so on and so on... Eventually one is strong enough to flap. Variety? Most birds are probably descended from just one dinosaur species like this, then the same thing happened to these birds; as they spread out they changed/adapted to their individual environments. Then those spread out, further changing and so on until you got the massive variety.

Haven't tests been done on eggs where they've got embryos in bird eggs to revert and grow tails...? I'm sure this was in New Scientist.

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin

Let's first start with the cleaner fish. This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth! This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Creationists point out that these relationships clearly represent a design that could not have occurred by chance. Evolutionists have a very difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Nevertheless, an evolutionist will somehow have us believe that the cleaner fish eventually figured out he could go in the shark's mouth, and the shark eventually figured out that he should let him so as to maintain proper dental hygiene. The following illustrations portray the likely repercussions of this ill-advised bravery.

Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi acknowledged that time, chance, and random mutations could never produce the numerous symbiotic relationships we see all around us (He went on to postulate an impersonal creative force, an "innate drive in living matter" in an attempt to make peace with his faith in evolution)1.

Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer. The lengths an evolutionist must go to explain away this one is beyond fairy tale!

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Charles Darwin

The theory of evolution is a THEORY. Not 100% fact. It's a work in progress so to speak..

But it's still the best and most likely explanation for life around us.

Quoting: jadksn 24543892

A theory by definition is the most rational and best fitting explanation we have for explaining facts.

Eg the theory of gravity will never become the "fact" or "law" of gravity (back when Newton was around the scientific method was not around, so he referred to his explanation as "laws of gravity", ironically later data showed him to be wrong (the orbit mercury did not fit his "law of gravity")).

Yes, false. "Creation" manifests a God that is bloodthirsty, cruel, twisted and vicious.

Every foolish Creationist quotes this text over and over to make a point about intelligent design and then ignores the utter lack of moral values in creation.

He created the guinea worm (extremely well designed!), alligators (with their backward pointing teeth to hold on to struggling victims), the Tyrannosaurus Rex (whose teeth marks have been identified on the fossils of other dinosaurs) and much more.

The utter lack of ethics in creation led Darwin to evolution and he talks about it in his writings.